GTL - Revision history

Rtaborda at 14:58, 13 November 2013

2013-11-13T14:58:08Z

2013-10-24T04:50:41Z

Integrating CVM-SI4.26 perturbations into Final Model

2013-10-21T19:01:32Z

2013-10-21T18:59:50Z

2013-10-21T18:59:29Z

Integrating CVM-SI4.26 perturbations into Final Model

2013-10-21T18:58:22Z

2013-10-17T18:32:27Z

Definition of Terms

2013-10-17T18:31:35Z

Definition of Terms

2013-10-17T18:29:27Z

Proposed Work Order

2013-10-17T18:28:55Z

Proposed Work Order

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:58, 13 November 2013
Line 52:		Line 52:

	'''2.2.2'''. Same as 2.2.1. but disregard positive perturbations inside the basin. This occurs to me now as I think again about Tom's comments during the telecon.		'''2.2.2'''. Same as 2.2.1. but disregard positive perturbations inside the basin. This occurs to me now as I think again about Tom's comments during the telecon.
		+
		+	'''2.2.3'''. Same as the TJ model described above.

	Out of the box, both 2.2. models should be better than 2.1. That is because, as I said before, 2.1. here is built only as a base model for the ones that will have the Vs30-based GTL next. On the other hand, the two 2.2. models do have some kind of GTL information as both recover that information from the original CVM-S when reversing the staring model Between 2.2.1. and 2.2.2., I have a sense that 2.2.1 will be better, but that is to be seen. Doing a comparison between 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 at this point is totally fair game.		Out of the box, both 2.2. models should be better than 2.1. That is because, as I said before, 2.1. here is built only as a base model for the ones that will have the Vs30-based GTL next. On the other hand, the two 2.2. models do have some kind of GTL information as both recover that information from the original CVM-S when reversing the staring model Between 2.2.1. and 2.2.2., I have a sense that 2.2.1 will be better, but that is to be seen. Doing a comparison between 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 at this point is totally fair game.

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 The net effect is that we recover the CVM-S GTL but more smoothly add
-in positive perturbations. This is in contrast to Ricardo's idea in
+in positive perturbations. This is in contrast to the 2.2.1 idea in
 which we don't use base Vs + positive perturbation but rather starting
-Vs + positive perturbation. Tom's idea captures the spirit of the
+Vs + positive perturbation.
 Difference plots are: tj_base_[depth]_0m_cs.png (TJ model - base

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Geotechnical Layer (GTL) refers to material properties from surface to about 350m depth. GTL is known to have significant impact on local strong ground motions:
 == Integrating CVM-SI4.26 perturbations into Final Model ==
-'''Description of algorithm:
+'''Description of algorithm:'''
 '''
 The TJ model was first described by Tom Jordan. In this model, we set the
 CVM-S4 value as the floor for the perturbations in areas where Vs <1000m/s.
@@ Line 21: / Line 27: @@
 model) and also horizontal slices are just tj_[depth]_cs.png.
+Powerpoint and online plots are located at:
 *[http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/ucvm/CVMS426_Plots.pptx Comparison Slides]
 *[http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/plots/cvms426_comparison/tj/ Comparison Plots]
 == Proposed Work Order ==
@@ Line 105: / Line 87: @@
 We note how in the "RE then Vs30 GTL" idea, the main CVM-S GTL area in the LA basin is nicely preserved, but interestingly when you combine the RE + Vs30 GTL ideas some elements of the CVM-S GTL look like they have been almost recovered.
 == Related Entries ==

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 == Integrating CVM-SI4.26 perturbations into Final Model ==
-Description of algorithm:
+'''Description of algorithm:
+'''
 The TJ model was first described by Tom Jordan. In this model, we set the
 CVM-S4 value as the floor for the perturbations in areas where Vs <1000m/s.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 model) and also horizontal slices are just tj_[depth]_cs.png.
 The files are located at
 *[http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/plots/cvms426_comparison/tj/ Comparison Plots]
 == GTL for CVM-S4 with Perturbations ==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 Geotechnical Layer (GTL) refers to material properties from surface to about 350m depth. GTL is known to have significant impact on local strong ground motions:
 == GTL for CVM-S4 with Perturbations ==
@@ Line 8: / Line 40: @@
 *[http://hypocenter.usc.edu/research/plots/cvms423_rethenvs30_gtl/ Profiles] - This is the version that does the Ricardo, En-Jui GTL, but if that isn't applicable, it does the Vs30 GTL.
 == Proposed Method for selecting GTL ==
@@ Line 78: / Line 101: @@
 Here we would be doing direct comparisons between 3.1 and 3.2 for each corresponding pair.  I believe that one of the two 3.2. options will prevail as the better one given what we have with us today, but this is purely intuitive and speculative, so the runs would have to be done in order to see.
 == Related Entries ==

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 == Definition of Terms ==
-* Base Model - CVM-S material properties as delivered by CVM-S4
+* Base Model - CVM-S4 material properties as delivered by CVM-S4
 * Starting Model for Inversion - CVM-S4 material properties with min Vs=1000m/s
 * Final Model with Inversion - CVM-S4 with Perturbations

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 A simplified workflow would go like this:
-Original reference model:
+Evaluate base (reference) model:
 . Run CH with base CVM-S.  This is done already, I have those results from my paper with Jacobo.

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 Original reference model:
-. Run CH with original CVM-S.  This is done already, I have those results from my paper with Jacobo.
+. Run CH with base CVM-S.  This is done already, I have those results from my paper with Jacobo.
 Intermediate reference model (with inversion but without Vs30-based GTL):